The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Who wants to learn a new conservation law?  (Read 17589 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #50 on: 03/12/2010 10:46:16 »
Interesting Jartza, especially the bit about 'symmetry', It's a big thing in string theory, and searched after as it is needed to validate the concept. Are you sure about this symmetry thing? and how do you think of 'frequency' here?

A planet is made of proper mass and so have 'matter waves' but, they are extremely 'small' in a planet. How do you measure a planets frequency? A harmonic? makes me think of the 'music of the spheres' :) I'm  afraid I'm losing you there. You might think of heat? Different planets give of different heat and so might be seen as having different 'frequency's'?

The closest I can relate too looking at your drawing is 'conservation of energy' but that's about 'energy', as defined of whatever 'energy' the objects you depict have from your frame of observation, when defined as a 'system', meaning you handpicking, hijacking and highlighting some 'objects' of choice into a 'system' for some purported relation.

And in the case of the drawing I would assume that energy a kinetic, expecting a collision where matter becomes 'energy'. And that law just assume that we have a closed universe where nothing gets 'lost', just transforming into other 'stuff', its main rule being that it goes from 'usable energy' to 'unusable, also seen as entropy.

So, if i get it right? You're saying that no frequency's gets lost? Just 'transform'? Well, I guess you might be able to state that, but I can, with as good reason, state that no 'hubba bubba' ever gets lost too. They just 'transform' into something sticky, mostly under my left foot, sorry, I may like my small jokes a little too much ::))
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #51 on: 03/12/2010 11:34:35 »
Rereading you I see I missed you calling the planets frequency the schrodingen wave. Isn't that quantum mechanics? Like so tiny that I hardly can see it? Well, sort of, after all, I do see photons?
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #52 on: 03/12/2010 12:24:22 »
yor_on, just for you I tried to write an essay :)

So yesterday I happened to read about dimensional analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Definition

Here's one set of fundamental dimensions:
M,L,T,Q,O
Notice, no energy E there. That's because M is equivalent to E.
We know this equivalence from the E=mc².
So E has been dropped as redundant.
We can put the E back in the set. Then we can take the M away from the set:
E,L,T,Q,O
From this:  E=hf  , we see E and f are equivalent, just like E and M.
So we can drop E from the set, if we put f into the set:
f,L,T,Q,O
Let's put E back there.
E,f,L,T,Q,O
Now we have a redundant set, where E and f equivalent.
If there is a conservation law of E then there is a conservation law of f.
Because E and f are equivalent and redundant, you see.
And there is a conservation law of energy, so there is a conservation law of frequency.
And conservation law of energy IS the conservation law of frequency, like conservation law
of energy IS conservation law of mass.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #53 on: 03/12/2010 20:57:03 »
Yes, I understand that you think there to be an equivalence.
What I don't understand is what you expect your law to state?

If you have a 'box' with let's say 'waves', or photons, as you're talking 'frequency', and with duality allowing me to treat it as particles if I like.

Doing so I will find what?

In which way do you mean frequency is a conserved property in that box?
Try to use your own words and just write me a tale about what you expect.

I'll read it with interest.

 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #54 on: 03/12/2010 23:09:01 »
yor_on, I don't feel like doing as you suggest :)
But here's a fine picture:


There's a rocket that is moving. Yellow thing is a light bulb. Red balls are photons. There's also an observer that is standing still. The rocket has a window. (not drawn) Some photons have passed through the window, the observer will observe these photons. The observer will observe that said photons are mostly HIGH frequency photons.

I guess you remember that in a fast moving rocket time is SLOW?
Here's one more picture of photons:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34429.msg331856#msg331856
« Last Edit: 03/12/2010 23:12:43 by jartza »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #55 on: 04/12/2010 01:29:06 »

The observer will observe that said photons are mostly HIGH frequency photons.


If the distance between the rocket and the observer is increasing, the observer will observe that said photons are LOWER frequency. (They'll be redshifted.)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #56 on: 04/12/2010 05:42:18 »
Yep :)

But we are discussing 'frames of reference' now, and that one weird subject. It's a little like the difference of running into a door, standing beside it, or getting chased by it :) Different "frames of reference" all of them. If you think of light as an accordion with the zigzag of its shape being how the 'jagged waves' are compressed in time, then, depending on if you're moving towards it, that accordion to you will be compressed. Being still at the side of the accordion is being 'at rest' versus it which will give you the correct image of its shape 'not moving'. And if you turn to leave it, going the opposite way, the accordion will 'stretch out' in time as it tries to reach you, like Geezer said.

The first is called lights 'blue shift' as the light when compressed, as seen from your 'frame of reference', will have a higher frequency and so also a higher energy.

The second is the lights 'original state' in its own 'frame of reference'.

The third is called a red-shift and will have a longer 'slower' frequency, and so from your 'frame of reference', also a lower energy than when you were 'at rest' relative it.

That light acts this way comes from the fact that it, in all frames of reference, will be coming at you at the same 'light-speed' if you measure it from your spaceship. The light doesn't care for your motion and direction, It will always have the same 'speed'. It is said that Einstein reached that conclusion as he started to wonder what would happen to his reflection in a mirror, if he was moving at light-speed, would he still see his reflection in that mirror?

It's a paradox, but he reached the conclusion that he should be able to see it, and from there he started to try to understand how that would be possible.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2010 05:54:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #57 on: 04/12/2010 08:45:09 »
yor_on, pay attention :)

The light inside fast moving rocket is mostly high frequency light.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #58 on: 04/12/2010 09:42:13 »
Inside the rocket :) Hmm.

Not to you being the pilot, from that frame of reference the light that a 60W hitech lightbulb sends out will have the same energy as it had on Earth, before you launched. Maybe you are thinking 'potential energy'? and thinking that it must have a higher potential, that light?

When you think so you always need to ask yourself, 'relative what'? If we take that light bulb as an example it have all sports of 'relative energy' or 'potential energy' as 'relations'. To define it you need to set against what you are comparing. If I define that lights 'potential energy' against the pilot it will be the same as it was on Earth before. If I define it against Earth, as you have turned home again accelerating, then its 'potential' energy will be much higher, just as its 'relative energy' will be.

Or maybe I'm missing your point here?

« Last Edit: 04/12/2010 13:06:48 by yor_on »
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #59 on: 04/12/2010 10:05:45 »
There are identical twin photons Bob and Rob.

Bob goes into a rocket and makes a high speed trip.

During the trip Bob waved a larger number of times than Rob.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #60 on: 04/12/2010 13:02:50 »
Nope again :)
Or yep ?

You're protecting your theory huh :)
Ah well, tell me when you've got the patent.
I can read that :)

Nah, you're just working off steam here.
If you're thinking time dilation and ..

Awh.
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #61 on: 04/12/2010 17:04:03 »
I'm just repeating the same thing.

Group of photons in a box has a rest mass. When the box is accelerated, the group of photons gains some relativistic mass, which is equivalent to energy, which is equivalent to frequency.

 

 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #62 on: 04/12/2010 20:16:40 »
Let's test it :)

Assume that you're inside that box, at rest relative one of the photons. the photon has 3 EQ (energy quanta) while 'at rest' in its own 'frame of reference'.

Would you then expect to see an added 'energy' from the acceleration in the photon? Assume that it is a uniform acceleration equivalent to one gravity.

Then do the same assuming that we now have a non-uniform acceleration for the box.

Tell me what you think, and I'll tell you what I think :)
Then we'll see if we agree.
==

To make it more palatable we could discus some particle of matter as they all have 'matter waves' (for the purists:) But for me photons are ok ::))
==

(And we better assume the box to be infinitely long as the photons will move :) inside it..)
« Last Edit: 04/12/2010 20:25:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #63 on: 05/12/2010 10:44:04 »
yor_on, your question is silly

We have already noted that a 60 W light bulb seems like a 60 W light bulb for a
passenger sitting in a space ship, watching the lamp that hangs on the space ship ceiling.


But here's a drawing!


Blue thing is a planet accelerator. Black balls are planets. Red ball is some particle. Green thing is a screen onto which planet hits make some marks. Because planet has quite high frequency, we can get a quite sharp planet-ray image of the particle. (x-ray, planet-ray, you see)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #64 on: 05/12/2010 12:14:38 »
Ahh :)
I see..

Like using matter waves as your spectroscopy.
well they're small enough they are :)

With a very sharp focus, one only need the right emulsion for processing them.
 

Offline jartza

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #65 on: 06/12/2010 22:13:16 »
Electron microscope produces maybe 1000 times as sharp images as light microscope,
because electron's frequency is maybe 1000 times as high as light's.

So, therefore:

The law of conservation of frequency forbids 2 light photons turning into electron positron pair.
But the law of conservation of frequency allows 2000 light photons turning into electron positron pair.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #66 on: 14/12/2010 11:14:58 »
So where's the gratefulness? I'm trying to help you guys. :)


Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.


Now read that sentence five times, slowly. Then answer the question "are mass and energy equivalent"


Photon has a turned mass into energy.If photon has distance until big mass then this photon has potential energy,only (in my computings)a turned mass into energy has less potential energy than a gravitation mass per two times . Therefore if photon loses potential energy then this photon recieves kinetic energy. :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Who wants to learn a new conservation law?
« Reply #66 on: 14/12/2010 11:14:58 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums